I don't get it. His explanation of why they didn't implement voice chat is because they didn't want to. They didn't think their game would benefit from it. They didn't want to waste time or resources developing it, they didn't want it to be hogging system resources in-game.

It doesn't fit the creator's vision. That is the ONLY reason needed to justify the absence of any particular feature from a game. Criticize the game all you want for lacking that feature, but take it as it is. They do not need to give a better reason. There is no better reason.

They make games; we decide if we like them and if we want to buy them.

Can't speak for anyone else, but this is what I take issue with:

"First, we put a lot of effort into every inch of the online stages, so by playing them over and over again users can get a better feel for the terrain, giving the gameplay more breadth and depth. The characteristics of the weapons and the strategies for using them vary with each weapon, and of course these will vary depending on the stage you use them in and even what combination of equipment your teammates and opponents are using."

And then the reason for leaving out voice chat:

"We think there are two reasons for wanting to use it: to play strategically, and to know what you opponent is feeling. We designed the game so that it's still possible to play strategically, while also giving due consideration so that there is no extreme advantage one way or the other. In terms of knowing what your opponent is feeling, we really do understand the fun that can be had with this, but we hope that you will also understand that it can also have a negative effect too."

So, they dose out the content so users can get familiar with it and develop and learn strategies, and then go on to say that voice chat would be desired as an additional strategic tool, so they didn't want to add it. They want people to play the maps over and over and get skilled with the various weapons but they don't want them to plan and communicate to improve strategy?
That's ridiculous.

If they had simply stated that; "We don't feel that the game would benefit from voice chat, so we didn't add it." it would be fine, but this reasoning is out of whack.
There's also the strange suggestion that "those who haven't played shooters before" would somehow mix and play with people who use voice chat and take it more seriously, and that the latter group would somehow scare the other one away.
This is is also corny reasoning seeing as how the major reason newbies would be turned away from facing experienced players would be the fact that they would get owned by them, whether or not these better players were chatting with one another on headsets is absolutely irrelevant in this context.
Deciding to not add voice chat, although a strange decision imo, is fine, but his reasoning for it is not, see the difference?

The game has no voice chat and I'm fine with that. As long as it has a mode to play with friends, I'll just set up a Skype. That way the console can focus on keeping the gameplay at 60fps.

Must you be so vulgar?

What are you referring to exactly?

I guess they never considered adding voice chat with a 'mute player' option.

You are wrong to say that the section you quoted is "the reason for leaving out voice chat." That paragraph is about how they approached designing the game after the decision not to include voice chat had already been made: "We designed the game so it is still possible to play strategically..." He is explaining how their design choices were intended to act as a 'substitute' for voice chat, allowing the players to strategize and work as a team without directly communicating. That section indicates he believes they successfully replicated the strategic benefits of voice chat, without the emotional elements -- as intended.

The explanation for why they did not develop voice chat for the game is in the previous paragraph. "Getting to this ("so that all players can enjoy the game") though meant going through a selection process for all features that should appear in the game, and as part of this process we decided to leave out voice chat." That's it, it's that simple. He said right there that they didn't want to include voice chat because they didn't believe it would make the game more enjoyable.

What I took that to mean was "We don't think Splatoon would benefit from voice chat and at the same time believe it would give some players an unfair advantage".  

I think they want to keep an even playing field and more importantly want to keep people from having to deal with dickishness.  I don't really understand why you think that contradicts them bringing everyone into the game slowly to keep everyone even.  In my mind it only reinforces it.

I personally don't mind the lack of voice chat, but I don't really enjoy playing online anyways.  The lack of a true local multi has ruined all excitement I might have harbored for this game.  

Two things come to mind seeing some posts here;

1: Adding voice chat with the option to turn it off is the most obvious thing they could have done, if the most simple players of this title are too dense to mute it in the options; they're likely way too simple to play the game the way it's meant to be played and enjoy the competitive element of its online play.

2: Voice chat does not impact the performance of the title; the processing power needed for the future and the required bandwidth are beyond miniscule. There is absolutely no way it would affect performance in any sort of manner.

The reasoning is not that good but I also wonder does this producer speak English properly when interviewed or is this Q & A again adjust translating Jap into English. Some words may not be translated properly or the producer's intention maybe lost in translation.

"We want players to develop strategies." - "It would be mostly for strategic use." You don't see a contradiction with those two ideas.

As for leveling the playing field; an okay idea but how will you attract people who play competitive games online and enjoy winning and getting skilled and climbing rankings if you make it a point not to include the simplest tools and options made to said gamers in other titles? And how will the more "casual" players enjoy taking part in matches with these more dedicated players?

I think this is another case of trying to appeal to everyone, and I don't think it will work very well in the long run.

I'm sorry, there's nothing anyone in this thread can say to change my mind on this. Making the choices, fine. Ridiculous explanations as to why; not fine in my opinion.
The world won't stop turning even if we disagree, but I really, truly believe that this is hogwash on their part.